Anarchy

[nekros]

I'm an extremely anti-establishment person. It seems to me that centralizing idiocy makes it both more potent more specific. That idiocy is human nature. The question is, would anarchy be any more benificial or destructive than the current trend in politics? By anarchy, I do not mean the chaotic de-evolution of the central power structure that is the government. I simply mean a society functioning without defined hiearchy.

[Cognition]

Anarchy in it's pure form would be horrible and really it'll never happen for any sustained period of time. Within in a day people would set up some kind of hierarchy and power structure, at minimum some form of tribalism. Overall in my opinion a lot of people romanticize what a weak or non-existent central government would be like. You'd basically be defending your own home and anything you own from bandits and warlords. Society as we know it simply couldn't exist because there wouldn't be enough stability for it to.

As for what you've defined anarchy as, it'd be similar. Society wouldn't exist as we know it, simply because it's large, complex and requires people to coordinate it to exist in it's current form. The population would have to shrink and people would need to back to something similar to sustenance farming. Without a hierarchy and defined roles you can't have labor specialization of a meaningful degree. You might get away with small communities of 30-40 people, but really not much beyond that. You simply cannot produce microchips or really acquire most mineral resources these days without capital and coordination provided by large corporations or states.

[Solar]

I simply mean a society functioning without defined hiearchy.

Hierarchy establishes itself, by the people having the power making sure that they keep having the power.

Politics, money, weapons, doesn't matter.

You don't get a society without hierarchy.

[nekros]

That is assuming that people think power over others is acceptable. Otherwise, the concept of power might not exist.

[invalid]

That is assuming that people think power over others is acceptable. Otherwise, the concept of power might not exist.

But people DO think that power is acceptable, they desire it, and actively seek to get it.
If at least one person thinks this way, you have to include it in your model considerations.
Assuming that anarchy in real world would hold for even a day basing on "peace and love" is like not handling exceptions in your kernel

Anyways, I know how you feel, am disgusted by current "control everything" politics. IMHO minarchy/anarcho-capitalism is the way to go. But again, there's REALITY and it's current state is NOT WITHOUT A REASON...

[turdus]

That is assuming that people think power over others is acceptable. Otherwise, the concept of power might not exist.

I think Solar is right, hierarchy will establishes itself. I think it's originating from childhood. No human being can survive it's first year without a greater power (parents), and I think subconscious keep this memory for the whole life. That's why people accept power over others.
If you study any society (not necessairly human, could be primates), there will be hierarchy, even the most primitive tribe has a chieftain.

[Lithorien]

Anarchy: Also known as, "Cool, I get to shoot everyone I dislike 'cause it's fun and there are no rules!"

Seriously? There will never be and can never be - thank goodness - anarchy with any number of people. The basic concept of respect for other human beings will take over! Think about it - you listen more to someone you respect than someone you don't, and by listening to them, they become a mentor of sorts. Enough people feel that way, and you have a natural leader.

If we didn't, as humans, have some form of leadership than life would just turn into one giant middle school playground where the strong dominated the weak, and the cruel destroyed the kind. In other words, it'd be the Occupy movement - violent, chaotic, directionless, and harmful to everyone involved in it.

Anarchy is the worst idea that people have proposed, and the concept of throwing out all government because people are corrupt is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[bubach]

... where the strong dominated the weak, and the cruel destroyed the kind.

So how is this different from todays society? Except it's now "hidden" behind structures and regulations, so it all seems much more civilized?

PS: I'm not saying anarchy is better or anything. Just that the differences might only be openly screwing people over and killing them vs stealth backstabbing and manipulating...

[SDS]

... where the strong dominated the weak, and the cruel destroyed the kind.

So how is this different from todays society? Except it's now "hidden" behind structures and regulations, so it all seems much more civilized?

Quite substantially. The whole purpose of the rights and freedoms of the individual is that you are not only enabled, but protected, from behaving and thinking in a manner different to that prescribed by the tyranny of the majority. A structured hierarchy is always susceptible to abuse and corruption, but you have to consider the extent to which this is possible without a hierarchy.

You only have to look at how racial or sexual minorities in areas with weak governance are treated (even if the laws are quite stringent) to see the direct benefit of formalised power and negotiation structures within society.


On a slight aside, it is very common for people to bray on-and-on about how terrible everything is now. Especially in the context of politics. I thought I would drop a little quote from the G2 report "Innovation with Impact" - admittedly there is bias in its authorship, but it does make a point...

The world economy is 500 percent bigger than in 1960. Whole groups of countries that had been at the margins have become key drivers of growth. Their success is widely viewed as a miracle.

This progress has benefited everyone, not just the richest. You can see progress in the rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of many countries around the world. You can also see it in falling poverty rates and other quality-of-life indicators captured in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), established by world leaders in 2000 and agreed to by all G20 nations.

In the past 50 years, a billion people were saved from starvation by advances in agriculture. Health has improved in stunning ways, thanks to innovations like vaccines. In 1960, 20 million children under the age of 5 died. In 2010, fewer than 8 million children under 5 died. The world population more than doubled during this time, which means the rate of death has been cut by over 80 percent.

Most of this has been achieved through cooperation and coordination between large groups of people in widely disparate locations. Don't underestimate the benefit of organisation and coordination.

Or maybe I am too much of an optimist.

[invalid]

On a slight aside, it is very common for people to bray on-and-on about how terrible everything is now. Especially in the context of politics.
(...)
Most of this has been achieved through cooperation and coordination between large groups of people in widely disparate locations. Don't underestimate the benefit of organisation and coordination.

I believe there is a confusion sometimes as to what is the difference between freedom and anarchy.

In contemporary politics, there is a trend for central planning on a large scale (from intercontinental structures to tiny details of everyday life). This results in bureaucracy and taxation reaching absurd levels.

And that is causing confusion: government seems to be involved in everything (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent ), and people might think that it's "anarchy" when you don't have to ask for permission to cut a tree on your own land.

[MasterLee]

Anarchy: Also known as, "Cool, I get to shoot everyone I dislike 'cause it's fun and there are no rules!"

[/quote]
That is not Anarchy

Seriously? There will never be and can never be - thank goodness - anarchy with any number of people. The basic concept of respect for other human beings will take over! Think about it - you listen more to someone you respect than someone you don't, and by listening to them, they become a mentor of sorts. Enough people feel that way, and you have a natural leader.

That is Anarchy!

That is assuming that people think power over others is acceptable. Otherwise, the concept of power might not exist.

I think Solar is right, hierarchy will establishes itself.

There are preparations you could make to prevent Autarchygenesis.
http://falkj.info/FJO_s_cu_b11.htm

I think it's originating from childhood. No human being can survive it's first year without a greater power (parents), and I think subconscious keep this memory for the whole life. That's why people accept power over others.
If you study any society (not necessairly human, could be primates), there will be hierarchy, even the most primitive tribe has a chieftain.

Thats wrong humans learn much from imitating others. So yourself acting honest and explaining your reasons is better for your children then any rules.

[turdus]

I think it's originating from childhood. No human being can survive it's first year without a greater power (parents), and I think subconscious keep this memory for the whole life. That's why people accept power over others.
If you study any society (not necessairly human, could be primates), there will be hierarchy, even the most primitive tribe has a chieftain.

Thats wrong humans learn much from imitating others. So yourself acting honest and explaining your reasons is better for your children then any rules.

Try to explain anything to a half year old child! Good luck with that! Imitation starts at age of one and a half, or two (according to my children), but in the meantime, child need somebody to give her/him to eat...

[MasterLee]

I think it's originating from childhood. No human being can survive it's first year without a greater power (parents), and I think subconscious keep this memory for the whole life. That's why people accept power over others.
If you study any society (not necessairly human, could be primates), there will be hierarchy, even the most primitive tribe has a chieftain.

Thats wrong humans learn much from imitating others. So yourself acting honest and explaining your reasons is better for your children then any rules.

Try to explain anything to a half year old child! Good luck with that! Imitation starts at age of one and a half, or two (according to my children), but in the meantime, child need somebody to give her/him to eat...

And what has giving something to eat to do with authority? Or power over others? I don't think that an half year old child have any deep thoughts about what are the reasons why he gets something to eat or not or why something is caring about him.

[Solar]

There are preparations you could make to prevent Autarchygenesis.
http://falkj.info/FJO_s_cu_b11.htm

Utopia. All these in-limbo visions of a better future are based on a much better human being than we all are, or ever will be.

People should not hold power over others? For that, you would have to remove any kind of dependency, as depenency means the other person having power over you.

This is not possible in a society with any amount of division of labor. You might be able to achieve this on the hunter / gatherer level, or to a certain amount in an agricultural society. But as soon as you depend on other people growing your food, there will be people having power over you.

Having power over others makes your life easier. You can't really dispute this. If you have the means - which include force and ruthlessness - there is nothing but your "better self" keeping you from applying those means for personal gain. And you can count on someone judging his personal gain to be more important than his "better self", and people who flock to such power, or there wouldn't be drug smugglers, warlords or organized crime in our days.

It is folly to think that mankind could ever evolve into something more elated than the somewhat clever animals that we are.

[brain]

It is folly to think that mankind could ever evolve into something more elated than the somewhat clever animals that we are.

On this quote, i do not agree. As time has progressed mankind has learned from their mistakes. I very much doubt there could be another spanish inquisition, or slavery of an entire race of people, or anything so drastic.
In general mankind is an empathic species and something within the common man prevents us from doing despeciable acts. This is not to say that every now and again some unhinged person won't encourage others to do evil acts in his name, we only have to look at world war two or even more modern war crimes such as those in bosnia to see that this can still happen.

However i do not think anarchy is the way forwards in our 'emotional evolution' or whatever you want to call it. I think that bettering ourselves can only be done with the checks and balances of an organised non-anarcistic society, e.g. a police force to punish those who step outside of societal norms, and armed forces to defend against groups of people who would trample on our way of life. An anarchy system would remove all ability to have either a police force or an army, leaving yourselves open to major abuses of power.